Arguments for God's Existence

The Cosmological Arguments

The Cosmological Argument is an argument for the existence of God inferring from facts about causation.

The basic premise for all cosmological arguments involves the concept of causation, and the conclusion is that there is some sort of "first cause," subsequently leading to the existence of God.

Its roots can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle, who were among the first to develop the idea of a first cause. Then, it was further developed in Neo-Platonism and early Christian philosophy. The argument was later adopted by Islamic theologians and philosophers, and then by Christian theologians and philosophers.

Argument from Contingency

Aquinas formed the argument from contingency, which is based on the idea that everything in the universe is contingent, meaning that it could have not existed. Since everything is contingent, there must be a necessary being that caused everything to exist. This necessary being is God. German philosopher Leibniz also developed a similar argument, which he called the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Alexander Pruss explained it as follows:

1. Every contingent fact has an explanation. - Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence.
2. There is a contingent fact that includes all other contingent facts. - There is a fact that includes all other facts, and this fact is contingent.
3. Therefore, there is an explanation of this fact. - There is an explanation for the fact that includes all other facts.
4. This explanation must involve a necessary being. - This explanation is the necessary being, which is a being that cannot not exist.
5. This necessary being is God.

Kalam Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is based on the idea that the universe has a beginning, and everything that has a beginning has a cause. In previous arguments that stated that "everything that exists has a cause," It could apply to God as well, but the Kalam Cosmological Argument is different in that it states that "everything that begins to exist has a cause." The argument was developed by Islamic theologians and philosophers and later adopted by Christian theologians and philosophers. The argument is as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. - Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument is often used in conjunction with the argument from contingency, and the two arguments are often used together to support the idea of a first cause. The Kalam Cosmological Argument is also used to support the idea of a first cause that is outside of time, and the argument is often used to support the idea of a timeless God.

Objections to the Cosmological Arguments

1. Why does the first cause not need a cause? - Many people respond to this by saying that the first cause is exempt from causation, but this could be considered special pleading.
2. No evidence for a specific God. - While the cosmological arguments can be used to support the idea of a first cause, they do not provide any details about the nature of this cause. It does not establish that it has the attributes of a personal God, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
3. Time - Many cosmological arguments attempt to label the first cause as "timeless," but that raises the question of how a timeless being can cause something to happen in time.
4. Causal Loops - A causal loop is a sequence of events in which event A causes event B, and event B causes event A. Under a scenario where traveling back in time is possible, a causal loop could occur. This could mean that the universe does not need a cause and that the universe could have come into existence without a cause.
5. Quantum Mechanics - The phenomenon known as quantum indeterminacy suggests that at a subatomic level, the causal principle starts to break down. Philosopher Quentin Smith has cited virtual particles as an example.
6. Big Bang Cosmology - The Big Bang theory suggests that when the universe began, space and time began as well. Therefore, the question of what came before the universe is meaningless because there was no "before."

Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager is an argument for the existence of God based on the idea that it is a better bet to believe in God than to not believe in God.

The argument is as follows:

1. If you believe in God and God exists, you will be rewarded with eternal life in heaven.
2. If you do not believe in God and God exists, you will be punished with eternal damnation in hell.

The argument is based on the idea that the potential reward for believing in God is infinite, and the potential punishment for not believing in God is infinite. Therefore, it is a better bet to believe in God than to not believe in God.

Objections to Pascal's Wager

1. The Nature of God - The wager does not specify which God to believe in, and there are many different conceptions of God. Therefore, it is not clear which God to believe in. The wager also assumes that God rewards belief and punishes disbelief, but this is not necessarily the case. It is equally possible that God rewards disbelief and punishes belief.
2. Insincere Belief - The wager assumes that one can simply choose to believe in God, but belief is not a matter of choice. One cannot simply choose to believe in something. Instead, this argument seems to be advocating for a utilitarian approach to belief, which could be considered insincere.
3. False Dichotomy - The wager assumes that the only two options are to believe in God or to not believe in God, but there are many other options, such as believing in a different God or believing in a different conception of God.

The Teleological Argument

The Teleological Argument is an argument for the existence of God based on the idea that the universe exhibits evidence of design. The argument is often referred to as the "argument from design."

The earliest versions of the argument can be traced back to ancient Greece, and then used by Islamic theologians. Following that, Aquinas developed the argument in his "Five Ways," and then it was further developed by William Paley in his "Watchmaker Analogy." In the contemporary era, the argument has been mainly used by Christians.

The argument generally goes as follows:

1. The universe exhibits evidence of design.
2. Design implies a designer.
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer.

The argument is often used to support the idea of a creator God, and it is often used to support the idea of a God who is intelligent and purposeful.

Objections to the Teleological Argument

1. Evolution - The theory of evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for the apparent design of the universe. The theory of evolution suggests that the apparent design in the universe is the result of natural selection and that there is no need to posit a designer.
2. The Anthropic Principle - The Anthropic Principle suggests that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for life because if it were not fine-tuned for life, we would not be here to observe it. Therefore, the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is not necessarily evidence of design. Douglas Adams famously used the analogy of a puddle that thinks the hole it is in was designed for it because it fits so well. Evolutionary theory further suggests that biological life adapts to its environment, not the other way around.
3. The Problem of Evil - The argument from design suggests that the universe is designed, but this raises the question of why the universe is designed in such a way that there is so much suffering and evil. If the universe is designed, then why is there so much suffering and evil?
4. The Argument from Scale - The argument from scale suggests that if the universe is designed, then the designer must also be designed, and this leads to an infinite regress; if the universe is designed, then what designed the designer?

The Moral Argument

The Moral Argument is an argument for the existence of God based on the idea that objective moral values and duties exist, and that the best explanation for the existence of these values and duties is the existence of God.

The argument generally goes as follows:

1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The argument is often used to support the idea of a moral lawgiver, and it is often used to support the idea of a God who is good and just.

Objections to the Moral Argument

1. Euthyphro Dilemma - The Euthyphro Dilemma suggests that if God commands something because it is good, then goodness is independent of God, and if God commands something because he commands it, then goodness is arbitrary. The dilemma suggests that the moral argument does not establish that God is the source of morality. In other words, does God command something because it is good, or is something good because God commands it?
2. Cultural Relativism - The moral argument assumes that there are objective moral values and duties, but cultural relativism suggests that moral values and duties are relative to culture and that there are no objective moral values and duties. If cultural relativism is true, then the moral argument does not establish that God exists.
3. The Problem of Evil - The argument from morality suggests that God is good and just, but this raises the question of why there is so much suffering and evil in the world.
4. The Argument from Scale - The argument from scale suggests that if God is the source of morality, then what is the source of God's morality? If God is the source of morality, then what is the source of God's goodness?
5. Evolution - The theory of evolution provides a naturalistic explanation for the apparent existence of objective moral values and duties. The theory of evolution suggests that the apparent existence of objective moral values and duties is the result of natural selection and that there is no need to posit a God.

Argument from Change

Advanced by Aristotle and Aquinas, and later shown in Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Edward Feser, the First Cause Argument is based on the idea that everything in the universe has a cause, and that there must be a first cause that caused everything to exist. This first cause is God. It goes like this:

1. Change occurs in the world.
2. Change is the actualization of a potential.
3. Potential cannot be actualized unless something actual causes it to be actual.
4. Therefore, all change is caused by something actual.
5. The chain of causes cannot be infinite.
6. Therefore, there must be a first, unchanging cause. This cause cannot have any potential, as it would need to be actualized by something else, and it cannot be caused by anything else, as it is the first cause.
7. This first cause is what we call God.

What is Change?

Before we can understand the argument, we need to define the various terms used. Firstly, change.

Parmenides, a pre-Socratic philosopher, argued that change is an illusion. He argued that change is impossible because it would require something that at one point doesn't exist to exist (come into existence) at another point. For example, a seed becoming a tree. This tree does not exist at one point, and if it doesn't exist, it is nothing. Therefore, something is coming from nothing. According to ex nihilo nihil fit, "nothing from nothing," you cannot get something from nothing. Therefore, if change involves something coming from nothing, change is impossible.

Aristotle, however, argued that change is real. Change doesn't involve something coming from nothing, instead something coming from a potential. The tree doesn't just come from nothing, it comes from the potential of the seed. The seed has the potential to become a tree, and this potential is actualized when the seed becomes a tree.

Objections to the Argument from Change

1. The Nature of God - The argument from change does not provide any details about the nature of the first cause. It does not establish that the first cause has the attributes of a personal God, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
2. A-theory of Time - The argument can only function on the A-theory of time, which posits that the present is the only real time, and that the past and future are not real. The B-theory of time instead argues that the past, present, and future are all equally real. The seed has its three dimensions, and an additional temporal dimension. The future tree and the seed are equally real, and the only reason its called a seed is because its observer occupies the same temporal dimension as the seed. The "actual" seed and the "potential" tree both exist, and if an observer "steps out" of the temporal dimension, it would see all of them at once. Therefore, calling something "potential" and "actual" based solely on the position of the observer is not a valid argument because its no longer a property of the seed, but a property of the observer. If the B-theory of time is true, if we were to look from outside of time, the concept of "change" would not exist because the past, present, and future all exist. Einstein's theory of relativity also supports the B-theory of time, as it suggests that time is relative to the observer.
3. Treating "potential" as something real - The argument treats potential as something real, but potential is not something that exists in the world. It is a concept that we use to describe the world. Therefore, the argument is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of potential. Furthermore, things can have many potentials. The seed can become a tall tree, a short tree, a dead tree, etc. In fact, the seed has an infinite number of potentials. In order to prevent Parmenides' argument, the argument from change would have to argue that all of these potentials already exist in the seed. It would have an infinite number of properties, which for many reasons is not possible.
4. Change is the actualization of potential, but not all actualization is change. The seed has the potential to become a tree, but it also has the potential of remaining a seed. Therefore, things have the potential to remain the same, and if not, they are not able to remain the same and will stop existing. Hence, actual things will always have at least one potential. However, the argument establishes that the first cause cannot have any potential, as it would need to be actualized by something else, but as we have demonstrated, God will need to have the potential to remain the same, and if not, it will stop existing.

Arguments from Religious Experience

Many people claim to have had religious experiences, such as miracles, visions, and encounters with God. These experiences are often used as evidence for the existence of God.

This argument has the strength of emotional appeal; when someone objects to the existence of God, the religious person can take that as a personal attack and claim that the objector is denying their personal experiences.

However, the argument from religious experience is often criticized for being subjective and unverifiable. Critics argue that religious experiences are often culturally conditioned and that they are not necessarily evidence for the existence of God. Personal experience is generally not considered a reliable form of evidence; false memories and hallucinations are common, and people from all religions claim to have had religious experiences. Therefore, any form of anecdotally based argument is not considered reliable evidence.